I can't recall that having happened. Do you recall specifics? On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Kirk Hall via Public <[email protected]> wrote:
> In the past, we have let ballot authors correct typos - such as > "certificaet" to "certificate". Would that no longer be allowed (meaning, > would that type of editing to a ballot require the restart of a new seven > day discussion period)? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Public [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Virginia > Fournier via Public > Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2017 9:21 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Public Digest, Vol 68, Issue 11 > > I agree with Ryan’s concerns below. > > Virginia Fournier > Sent from my iPhone > Please excuse iTypos > > > On Dec 6, 2017, at 3:58 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > Send Public mailing list submissions to > > [email protected] > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > [email protected] > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > [email protected] > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of Public digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot XXX: Update Discussion Period > > Process (Kirk Hall) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 23:58:48 +0000 > > From: Kirk Hall <[email protected]> > > To: Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]>, CA/Browser Forum Public > > Discussion List <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot XXX: Update Discussion > > Period Process > > Message-ID: > > <[email protected]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > My thinking was that the phrase we choose would itself indicate that > corrections could only be made if they didn?t present any substantive > issues. How would you phrase that concept so it was clear to all? > > > > From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2017 12:27 PM > > To: Kirk Hall <[email protected]>; CA/Browser Forum Public > > Discussion List <[email protected]> > > Cc: Tim Hollebeek <[email protected]>; Gervase Markham > > <[email protected]> > > Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Ballot XXX: Update Discussion Period > > Process > > > > Do you have a more concrete proposal for how that would look that > addresses the issues that have been repeatedly raised over the years with > such proposals? > > > > As we've seen in past conversations, including Ballot 190, both > typographical and numbering corrections have had profound normative impact. > Discussions about structures organized such as "1 and 2 and 3" (within > lists) being unclear as to whether they're "(1 and 2) or 3" or "1 and (2 or > 3)" > > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Kirk Hall via Public < > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > We will also endorse. > > > > Gerv, do you want to allow ?minor typographical and numbering > corrections? without restarting the 7 day discussion period? > > > > From: Public > > [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected] > > >] On Behalf Of Tim Hollebeek via Public > > Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2017 9:54 AM > > To: Gervase Markham <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; > > CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List > > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > > Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Ballot XXX: Update Discussion Period > > Process > > > > I?ll endorse this one. > > > > I still have some concerns about forcing a 7 day wait might cause > problems if a new version of the ballot simply has a spelling correction or > minor wording clarification. We can see if it?s actually a problem in > practice if I?m the only one who feels that way. > > > > But the most important thing is removing the automatic start of voting > when we may or may not be ready. And I think that would be a great > improvement. > > > > -Tim > > > > From: Public [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gervase > > Markham via Public > > Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2017 9:00 AM > > To: CABFPub <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > > Subject: [cabfpub] Ballot XXX: Update Discussion Period Process > > > > > > [Here's a repost of my proposed text to fix the issue that Tim has > > helpfully recently re-raised.] > > > > Ballot XXX: Update Discussion Period Process > > > > Purpose of Ballot: The current voting procedures specify a "period of > discussion", the duration of which is fixed before the ballot process > begins. This ballot updates that to instead have the period of discussion > be more flexible, to avoid it expiring while discussion is ongoing and > thereby voting on a sub-optimal ballot. > > > > The following motion has been proposed by Gervase Markham of Mozilla and > endorsed by XXX of XXX and XXX of XXX: > > > > -- MOTION BEGINS -- > > > > This ballot modifies the CAB Forum Bylaws. > > > > In Section 2.3(c), replace the text: > > > > "The discussion period then shall take place for at least seven but no > more than 14 calendar days before votes are cast. The proposer of the > ballot will designate the length of the discussion period, and each ballot > shall clearly state the start and end dates and times (including time zone) > for both the discussion period and the voting period." > > > > with: > > > > "The discussion period then shall take place for at least seven calendar > days before votes are cast. At any time, a new version of the ballot > (marked with a distinguishing version number) may be posted by the proposer > in the same manner as the original. Once no new version of the ballot has > been posted for seven calendar days, the proposer may end the discussion > period and start the voting period by reposting the final version of the > ballot and clearly indicating that voting is to begin, along with the start > and end dates and times (including time zone) for the voting period. The > ballot automatically fails if 21 calendar days elapse since the proposer > last posted a version of the ballot and the voting period has not been > started." > > > > Similarly, in Section 2.4(b), replace the text: > > > > "As described in Section 2.3(c), there will be a discussion period of at > least seven but no more than 14 calendar days before votes are cast on a > Draft Guideline Ballot, with the start and end dates of such discussion > period clearly specified in the ballot." > > > > with: > > > > "As described in Section 2.3(c), there will be a discussion period of at > least seven days before votes are cast on a Draft Guideline Ballot, with > the start date of such discussion period clearly specified in the ballot. > The discussion period shall end and the voting period shall commence also > according to the procedure specified in Section 2.3(c)." > > > > In Section 2.3(d) of the CAB Forum Bylaws, replace the text: > > > > "Upon completion of the discussion period, Members shall have" > > > > with: > > > > "Upon commencement of the voting period, Members shall have" > > > > Similarly, in Section 2.4(c), replace the text: > > > > "As described in Section 2.3(d), upon completion of such discussion > period, Members shall have" > > > > with: > > > > "As described in Section 2.3(d), upon commencement of the voting period, > Members shall have" > > > > -- MOTION ENDS -- > > > > The procedure for approval of this ballot is as follows: > > > > > > Start time (22:00 UTC) > > > > > > End time (22:00 UTC) > > > > > > Discussion (7 to 14 days) > > > > > > XXX > > > > > > XXX > > > > > > Vote for approval (7 days) > > > > > > XXX > > > > > > XXX > > > > > > Votes must be cast by posting an on-list reply to this thread on the > > Public list. A vote in favor of the motion must indicate a clear 'yes' > in the response. A vote against must indicate a clear 'no' in the response. > A vote to abstain must indicate a clear 'abstain' in the response. Unclear > responses will not be counted. The latest vote received from any > representative of a voting member before the close of the voting period > will be counted. Voting members are listed here: > https://cabforum.org/members/ In order for the motion to be adopted, two > thirds or more of the votes cast by members in the CA category and greater > than 50% of the votes cast by members in the browser category must be in > favor. Quorum is shown on CA/Browser Forum wiki. Under Bylaw 2.2(g), at > least the required quorum number must participate in the ballot for the > ballot to be valid, either by voting in favor, voting against, or > abstaining. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Public mailing list > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was > > scrubbed... > > URL: > > <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20171206/1474039a/at > > tachment.html> > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Public mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of Public Digest, Vol 68, Issue 11 > > ************************************** > _______________________________________________ > Public mailing list > [email protected] > https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public > _______________________________________________ > Public mailing list > [email protected] > https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public >
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
